the value of 30,000 dollars) amongst which were the protested bills from Venice; and respondent was forced to fly to England to save his life; and being there incapable for want of his books and papers, to sue for his said just debt, and under extreme necessities for money for his subsistence, Gates took the advantage thereof, and made the respondent give him a note for 50l. as borrowed; and respondent was forced to retire into the country for several years, till appellant in Trinity term, 1689, had brought his bill in the Exchequer against Gates, for an account and share of the currants aforesaid. And Gates having answered, appellant was decreed his share, and an account accordingly; whereupon respondent, in Trinity term, 1690, brought his bill in Chancery against appellant and Agnes Gates, widow and administratrix of Daniel Gates, for an account and satisfaction for the Currants aforesaid, and they having answered, appellant denied he was partner with Gates in the said currants; and several witnesses being examined, the cause was heard, 5th December, 1691, and on reading the proofs, and the proceedings in the Exchequer, (there being an order for that purpose) the court was satisfied that appellant was partner with Gates for the currants, and that they ought to account to respondent for the same, and referred it to the master, as stated by appellant; and the master having been several times attended by both [62] sides, on the charge and discharge, the Court was moved, 25th February, 1691, and council for appellant and Gates were fully heard, as to having a commission to examine beyond seas, and the court then declared that there was no cause for either party to have a commission in taking the account, on which the master accordingly proceeded, and appellant and Gates exhibited several interrogatories, on which respondent was examined, and fully answered the same on oath, and proved the whole money due; and several witnesses were examined before the master, and the particular price, and the buying up of the currants fully proved; and Anselme, one of the correspondents at Venice was also examined before the master both on appellant's and respondent's part, and could not prove one penny paid for those currants, but said that there was a free commission sent to respondent in particular, to buy up a cargo of currants, and that no money was remitted or paid respondent on that particular account, by him or his partner Williams; but that several sums were remitted by them to Pendarves and respondent as partners, upon their joint account, in relation to other concerns: and the master being ready to make his report, appellant, in January, 1692, preferred his petition and appeal to the Lords, alleging that the cargo had been paid for by money and effects sent by the very same ship, and complaining that the decree was very unjust, and also that the said order of the 25th of February, whereby they were to have no commission, was unjust, and prayed a reversal: To which appeal respondent put in his answer, and upon hearing council on both sides, 27th of January, 1692, the said appeal was dismissed with 20l. costs, and the decree affirmed; and thereupon the Master made his report, 17th of January, 1693, and certified due to respondent for ready money by him paid for the currants, and interest to the time of hearing, 6404l. 9s. 7d. which report was duly confirmed upon full debate: And respondent haring sued a sequestration thereon, appellant fraudulently conveyed away his estate, and Agnes Gates ran away with her effects, and appellant brought a second appeal to the Lords for the same purpose, with his former appeal, which respondent insisted ought to be dismissed, because the account insisted on by appellant as a receipt for the price of the currants, is no more than an account current, saving errors, and the bills, for which respondent therein gave credit, not being paid, but [63] afterwards protested the money was still due to the respondent, as if no such credit given; and if this account had been, as pretended, a stated account, appellants could have produced receipts for the money, and also respondents letters, wherein he must have acknowledged the receipt thereof; and Anselme, who was the man that must have remitted the money, swore no money was paid; and for appellant's suggestion, that money and effects, sufficient were sent by the ship to buy up the currants, the commander who carried her over, had been examined, and proved only 1100 Dollars sent with the ship, for which they have credit; and as to the objection that respondent had given a note, under his hand, to Gates for 50l. as borrowed and received, it was proved in the cause, that Gates took advantage of the necessity respondent was reduced to at his coming to England, and made
181
